What is the cheapest wireless lavalier system (body transmitter, receiver, and lavalier mic) that meets these requirements:

no static or interference noise when used within, say, 50 feet
won't break when dropped on ground from 4 feet high

I have a sennheiser ew100 g2 that meets the first requirement. Not sure the second (never dropped and don't plan to test). There are more inexpensive choices in wireless system since I bought my set, any of them good?

This is used for podcast type of video with several people speaking. A wired system could be messy with people tripping over each other's cable. A pocket recorder with lav could also work, but I feel better being able to monitor the sound when I shoot.

By coincidence, over on another audio for video forum there is a "love fest" for the RODElink wireless kit. This is quite unusual as most of the online forums are filled with people complaining about the gear they are using.

Ref: Røde Video Wireless Compliment (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?360624-R%F8de-Video-Wireless-Compliment)

Because countries around the world are "re-purposing" wireless bandwidth, all our older wireless gear has gone (or is in the process of going) obsolete and illegal. The new paradigm is to use the 2.4GHz "ISM" band which is is license-free and reliably protected everywhere around the planet at least for a few decades. This is the same band used by WiFi, Bluetooth, and microwave ovens.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band

Because microcomputers are dirt-cheap it is easy and inexpensive to make gear that constantly monitors the 13 channels in the 2.4GHz and switches channels on-the-fly to avoid interference from other users of the 2.4GHz band.

There are several wireless microphone products now available that use the 2.4GHz band. From the Azden Pro-XD to the RODElink to the Audio Technica System 10 to the Shure GLXD and perhaps others as well. The RODElink is rather at the lower end of price range of 2.4 GHz. Azden is typically the lowest cost representative of most product ranges (and with a somewhat deserved poor reputation).

Azden: PRO-XD Digital Wireless Microphone System for Video | Azden (http://www.azden.com/products/wireless-systems/pro-xd/)
Rode: RØDE Microphones - RØDELink Filmmaker Kit (http://www.rode.com/wireless/filmmaker)
AT: https://eu.audio-technica.com/wireless/wireless-by-series/system-10
Shure: ULX-D Digital Wireless Systems | Shure Americas (http://www.shure.com/americas/products/wireless-systems/ulxd-systems)

My personal opinion is that even the low-end Azden PRO-XD is quite high performance at a surprising low price. But because of long-held prejudice against Azden, we are unlikely to see a similar "I love Azden" discusson anytime soon.

Note that essentially all wireless mic kits (mic, transmitter, and receiver) have separate, interchangeable microphones which connect to the transmitter "body pack". Don't confuse the performance of the microphone with the performance of the transmitter/receiver. Most wireless mic kits come with a default, rather low-quality microphone. Many serious users substitute a higher-quality microphone to use with their wireless kits.

People who make comments about the "audio quality" of a wireless kit are talking about the microphone, not the transmitter/receiver. If you don't like the microphone, you can get a different mic. It is becoming more popular to use a "headset" or "earset" mic with a very tiny wand that places the microphone on the subject's cheek right next to the mouth. This is often an excellent way to get good audio pickup in a noisy or reverberant environment.. Many of us like OscarSoundTech as a good vendor of good quality mics at sensible prices. And they can make a mic of your choice with the connector that matches whichever wireless transmitter you have.

Ref: Home (http://www.oscarsoundtech.com/)

Dang, Richard, what a GREAT reply and good read!

This was the first post I read when logging in and … awesome. Throw in a few pictures and feature comparisons and you have a magazine article.

This is one thing I don’t have yet, a wireless mic system. Well, except for one really old early 1980s RCA lav but it’s probably not legal to use. Even have the original box and instructions for it. Been looking at the Sennheiser ENG system for years, went from the new G2 and now the G3, but never sprung loose with the money for it. Will most likely have a need for something this for summer so I might test the water with one of these that you mentioned.

Thanks to your post I might get one because this will speed up my research time which is always time consuming, and time is precious. My use would be out on a boat so, hopefully, mostly out of range of conflicting signals.

Edit: Good post by the OP also.

Thanks Richard for the detail response.

Good point about wireless bandwidth and the 2.4Mhz system. My wireless set is still in the legal band, but do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands?

I did notice many people are raving about the rode link. I'll put it on my wishlist :)

Richard's reply is excellent as usual. I would only add a few things:

It's probably true that when most people talk about wireless quality they are talking about the quality of the lav mic. But the build and algorithms used in the transmitter/receiver can also have a big effect. There is a big step up from the Sennheiser G2 and G3 units to Lectrosonics, for instance. Some of it is that Lectro units tend to be used with higher end mics, but Lectro's full systems are just better made with better software to control the "hop". They also tend to work better at longer distances, are less prone to break, but of course also cost a lot more.

Latency can be a problem with some of the newer 2.4GHz based systems. Latency is delay introduced by the system, so if you hear the person directly, you will hear the voice through the system a split second later. If latency is small, then it's not such a big deal. But with some of the systems, it not only drives the audio person crazy to hear the live sound and then a delayed sound through their system, but it can mean extra work in post production to sync it all up as well.

And finally, and least important really, is the "name brand" recognition. This is not at all an issue if you are shooting your own projects or if you are a hobbyist. It can be an issue if you are freelancing for larger production companies. They may not hire you if you say you use Azden gear, for instance. Shallow, I know, but that's the reality.

Have fun!

A wired system could be messy with people tripping over each other's cable.

Maybe, but you'll pay a steep price to go wireless just because of this. Wireless is a last resort, not a first. Only use wireless if you can't get it done any other way.

A good XLR cable sounds better, costs way less, and is far more reliable than any wireless made. This is true now and has always been true and likely always will be true.

If you have trouble with people tripping over your XLR cables, learn to tape them down with some Gaffers' Tape. A roll of Gaffers' tape is way cheaper than any wireless system.

I agree with Bruce. If you have a fixed location you might be able to leave most of the wires in place. Wireless is expensive, shrinking usable spectrum, interference and lower audio quality, replacing or charging batteries. If you're filming in a small room most any cheap wireless will work. The more expensive systems are built for more challenging situations.

Thanks Richard for the detail response.

Good point about wireless bandwidth and the 2.4Mhz system. My wireless set is still in the legal band, but do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands?


Yes....professionals do stop using banned frequency mics. I have two sure units that have not been used since a ban several years ago. One day, good mics, day after ban, boat anchors. Very frustrating.

The chances of "getting caught" and facing the outrageous fines may be almost slim to none. Who knows? It is agamble not worth taking. But the main reason I would never use them is because those frequencies are banned because they become repurposed. Almost always for use by those broadcasting much more powerful signals than wireless mics. Your going to take hits. Sometimes it may be from emergency responders. When I am on one of my shoots I do not want local police and fire traffic being recorded on my audio tracks ;-)

Steve

I concur with Richard, most of the mics that are included with the systems work... but are not even close to premium quality. Even the with Lectro systems, their M series mics could be better.
I also concur the OST mics are a good bang for the buck. OST's customer service is very good as well.

"do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands"?"
- Only if they get interference or are arrested. You will not be arrested for using the 600 MHz range until July 2020. Interference depends where you are and that is expanding rapidly.

If you’re filming a podcast at home you most likely could get away with using an older banned wireless. Like Steve said no pro is going to risk a paid gig using banned unit that could fail in the middle of a live event.

"do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands"?"
- Only if they get interference or are arrested. You will not be arrested for using the 600 MHz range until July 2020. Interference depends where you are and that is expanding rapidly.

Rick always says it better than me.

And what difference does it make if it is a home podcast or a corporate interview when you interfere with federal regulations?

Steve

As for using old gear, at least here in the US, they have already taken away the 700 MHz band.

Ref: https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/wireless-microphones-prohibited-700-mhz-band

And the 600 MHz band has seen a large portion auctioned off to put more billions of $$$ into that black hole of the US Federal budget. And it will be completely gone in a very few years.

Ref: https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/wireless-microphones

Can you get away with using older, illegal gear? Maybe. Do you feel lucky, punk? (Ref: Dirty Harry) Perhaps if you are operating in West Undershirt, Wyoming where the nearest police/fire/ambulance is 300 miles away. But I wouldn't tempt fate by doing that in any big city.

It is true that back in the analog era, there was a definite difference in audio performance between low-end products and high-end pro gear. But with all the heavy lifting transferred to the digital domain, my perception is that the difference of performance is greatly narrowed. OTOH, there remains a difference in RF performance (sensitivity, rejection, etc.) and certainly in build-quality. And a lot of the gear tends to use built-in rechargeable batteries (from 5V USB) which isn't necessarily all that convenient in hectic professional situations.

Yes, latency is one significant downside of the new digital world. It takes time (milliseconds) to encode and decode, and even more ms to implement frequency-hopping and error detection and correction. For lower-end video productions, this may be only a minor annoyance requiring one to "slip" the audio track a few frames to match the video during post-production. But in a pro environment, especially one with many mics, and most especially in a live-event situation, this could become a show-stopper.

And we must never forget that wireless mics are NEVER EVER the first choice unless there is some significantly compelling reason to use them. It will always be true that your average $30 XLR cable is INFINITELY more reliable than even a $3000 wireless kit.

I've been wondering: How would authorities actually go about tracking down offenders? It's not like there is some kind of GPS in a wireless mic. Has anyone actually been caught and charged yet?

Maybe the answer is obvious, but just curious.

Offenders are typically discovered by the legal users of the channel and reported to the authorities (i.e. the FCC in the USA).
And the offenders are located by the usual law-enforcement detective methods. But in the case of RF, made easier by using Radio Direction Finding

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding

Back in the "good old days" the FCC had patrol vehicles with big loop antennas that could triangulate the offenders. But in modern times I have never heard of the FCC going out themselves on simple patrols. They don't have the resources to do that anymore. They react to complaints from offended users these days.

Thanks for that Richard. Always appreciate your vast knowledge and wisdom!

Wireless transmitters are very low power, so it is unlikely one will be heard by anyone, even the spectrum cops, more than a few hundred yards away. However, wireless receivers are reasonably sensitive, so they will hear any reasonably strong signal in the air where they are. Notionally a 30 mW transmitter (typical of wireless system output power) at 100 yards provides roughly the same signal strength at the receiver as a 1000 W transmitter 10 miles away.

I shot video at a wedding reception in downtown DC, the DJ's system was picking up the DC cops. Another case at a high school stadium north of Richmond, VA. One Shure VHF system was swamped by a TV transmitter ~20 miles away, The mic was 100' from the receiver.

While interfering with teenage chatter on cell phones is likely not a big deal, interfering with emergency service communications is.

Latency can be an issue, so check system latency as you shop. I believe Rode claims 4 ms, about 1/4 of an NTSC field. The physical effect is as if standing about 4 feet further from the person speaking.

If you really need wireless, VHF band systems are available at low price points, and can work reasonably well for voice in a "home" environment where the user owns the gear. (IMO home use tends to be less abusive to gear then professional environment use where it is used by the hired help focused on other concerns.) Just check frequencies against local TV & FM transmitters.

From a price perspective the RodeLink is dirt dirt cheap.

But from a professional perspective I can't recommend it, as their bulky size is unacceptable (but if you don't care about concealing the transmitter? Then this doesn't matter), and their functionality is rather lacking.

Instead my go to recommendation is the Sony UWP-D11, which only costs a little bit more but offers you so much more.

My personal opinion is that even the low-end Azden PRO-XD is quite high performance at a surprising low price. But because of long-held prejudice against Azden, we are unlikely to see a similar "I love Azden" discusson anytime soon.

Not having a locking connection (on either the TX or RX) is a shocking oversight! Quite unacceptable in my eyes.

And no user replaceable battery is just yet another strike against it.

But again, everyone's needs are different, if you don't mind this serious flaws then this could be an ok choice to consider.

But in a professional environment these are serious dealbreakers for the sound department. (before we even get onto the topic of sound quality / reliability / etc)

The UK is very small, but we have no on-call protection from the licensing authorities unless it's big and important. For radio systems the real problem with un-licenced frequencies is the huge scope for interference from the legitimate users, and while if they are the local tv company's camera crews, unless they're in the same location, a few mW doesn't travel far, it gets bad if the other user is the telephone company with hundreds of Watts of digital, thats's bad.

Most of my hire stock is Sennheiser - and they have been dropped a LOT! G2 and G3 both have occasional issues with the buttons - but these fail more often from being sat on, rather than dropped. The flaps can get damaged, if they open and get caught, but they're pretty good. I also have some of the cheaper ones and while they're better value, plastic battery compartments, clips and flaps are terrible. I won't buy any more Line 6 for this reason. I also have some Chinese kit modelled on the Sennheiser shape and these have been no worse than the Sennheiser oddly.

Keep in mind that radio packs are designed for people like actors and dancers who drop them on the floor, drop them down toilets and get them squashed by scenery. This is why for hire I use Sennheiser.

How cheap is cheap. £150 https://youtu.be/7PGa7NctYUY

The noise floor in that video is truly horrible, what are you trying to demonstrate?

We certainly heard clothes rubbing noises from a casually-positioned clip-on microphone. There are widely-known methods of eliminating that kind of noise. Including choice of wardrobe, etc.

The remainder of the background noise wasn't so easily categorized. It was probably a combination of:
1) Ambient noise in the room. We don't have any way of knowing how much noise was there already.
2) Self-noise of the microphone. How good do you expect to get from TWO microphones, two transmitters and a receiver all for 150 GBP? That is why many people upgrade the microphone in their wireless kit.
3) Noise from the mic preamp in the transmitter and the audio output circuit of the receiver. I didn't hear any kind of noise or other artifacts that could be attributed to the digital (or RF) domains of the signal path.

I thought the performance was pretty good for a system with two mics/transmitters and receiver for 150 GBP.

David, Buy cheap get cheap. I was annoyed they were not stereo. Also, don't forget many of us are amateur hobbyists with little money.

I've used Sennheiser's ew100 series in the past. Recently I purchased a newer Sennheiser AVX-ME2 set, not cheap but somewhere in the middle, and I couldn't be happier.

Here are a couple of interviews I recorded with it, if you'd like to hear what it sounds like.
https://youtu.be/pVZR2BLNEhg
https://youtu.be/VMEs0dDji7Q
This was in light-to-medium wind; I added a cheap cat ear on top of the Sennheiser mic which worked great.

I have not done a drop test (and don't plan to), so no feedback on that requirement. :-)

- Martin

I think we should confirm something - radio mics are never stereo. You have two transmitters, and one receiver - but are you saying the receiver merges the two transmitters at a fixed level, and outputs both channels as one single channel containing two separate microphone sources? That's really useless and pointless. You are looking nag through a viewfinder and wouldn't have any way of knowing if the balance is right? Very strange device, I can't imagine ever wanting to merge two mics, before recording?

As I recall, AT 1800 dual-channel receiver had a mode, which could dum the two Tx audio to the outputs. it had independent channel output volume, so they could be mixed somewhat, but I certainly wouldn't want two sources on one channel either way.

There are other dual wireless mics such as the Saramonic which have two transmitters and one receiver with two independent outs. Not like my cheap Boya which blends the two receivers into one. Most times it is better to save a bit more and buy better as it will save you cash in the future. I have a box full of crap to prove it.

I'm about to replace my old Sennheiser G3s that are in the retiring 600MHz band. There are trade-in rebates until the end of the month I want to take advantage off, so I have been contemplating the choices. Good discussion and data points in this thread.

I have my reservations about the digital 2.4GHz systems, mostly because that spectrum is beyond crowded, especially in big metro markets (NYC in my case). Just opening your computer and the list of available networks in range doesn't fit on the screen by a mile. It's a big leap of faith in some way thinking that finding a good reliable sliver amongst that even with all the advantages of digital will work out.

Also, I do work in post production and timecode sync my audio, so the thought of having to shift all clips a few frames, and do that on the wireless audio clip, but not the boom clip is an absolute non-starter, and I wouldn't expect anyone editing my footage to do that.

I've considered the Lectros, but I'm primarily on the camera side. For bigger or sound critical productions I'll hire a sound crew. But I maintain a base set for smaller jobs, and occasionally I am the sound crew for others on smaller productions. The step up in price to the Lectros is considerable and I'd probably invest it elsewhere first right now. The G3 ew100s have been ok, and I do have a hand-held signal scanner to backup the built-in scan just in case.

So that has lead me down to looking at the just released G4 ew500s as a middle ground. Still affordable but better mic and a few more bells.

Any thoughts on other alternatives stepping up from the G3 ew100 without spending $3K per channel and not going digital? Any thoughts on the G4 and 500 series?

Oh, and on the getting caught for frequency violations - not a wireless lav, but a crypto miner got served a FCC shutdown notice in NYC a few months ago because of some hardware issue his mining rig was interfering with T-Mobile's mobile signal and they tracked him down (https://www.coindesk.com/fcc-bitcoin-miner-interfered-t-mobile-network/).

In my eyes the entry level G4 is not worth it over the G3, and neither is the next step up in the G4 range which doesn't really add that much more.

Sony UWP-D11 remains as the best option in the sub $1K ish market.

Unless you want to wait for the new Aputure/Deity wireless to come out later this year.


Also, I do work in post production and timecode sync my audio, so the thought of having to shift all clips a few frames, and do that on the wireless audio clip, but not the boom clip is an absolute non-starter, and I wouldn't expect anyone editing my footage to do that.


The delay for *good* (not stuff like Sennheiser AVX!) 2.4GHz is mere milliseconds, that is not even half a frame worth. Much less.

In my eyes the entry level G4 is not worth it over the G3, and neither is the next step up in the G4 range which doesn't really add that much more.

Sony UWP-D11 remains as the best option in the sub $1K ish market.

Thanks, good to know. I do have to replace a few G3s due to band, so I guess it's trade band or trade-up.

It occurs to me that I may be mounting this horse backwards. For me lavs are generally the backup channel to the boom. I have either a MKH-50 or 8060 on the boom. So I think the better way to ask this question is what lav system is of comparable quality to the boom signal. If I can afford it, that's what I should pair it with, not whatever is the best sub $1K unit. 2 channels is the minimum, 4 would be great over time.

I guess the operative question is what is your budget?

I guess the operative question is what is your budget?

If I could find a reasonable system below $1K that would obviously be preferred, but if the right choice is a $3K system it's not out of the realm, it would just take longer to build out the channel count.

In the end the result is only as good as the weakest link of everything on set. So underspending drags everything down, overspending is wasteful and should instead be put to whatever else the next weakest link is. So the reference point in terms of quality is the MKH-50 for audio, a Varicam LT for picture, and a Skypanel for light if that makes sense. The G3s no longer measure up in that by appearance.

I know this is a bit of a fluid answer, but I try to approach with logic rather than a hard number. Thanks for taking the time to consider the options.

Thanks, good to know. I do have to replace a few G3s due to band, so I guess it's trade band or trade-up.

It occurs to me that I may be mounting this horse backwards. For me lavs are generally the backup channel to the boom. I have either a MKH-50 or 8060 on the boom. So I think the better way to ask this question is what lav system is of comparable quality to the boom signal. If I can afford it, that's what I should pair it with, not whatever is the best sub $1K unit. 2 channels is the minimum, 4 would be great over time.

What is the same quality as a boom? NOTHING

Not even if you have the top DPA/Sanken lavs with the best and latest Lectrosonics/Zaxcom/AudioLtd/Wisycom will it out perform a well placed good boom mic swung by a skilled operator.

The only reason we are ever *ever* forced to use lavs is because the camera/DoP/lighting/director/gaffer screw us over :-( Sadly the priority of sound isn't put first! :-o Ah, one can only dream....

Anyway, back to the question at hand, what wireless to get:

Best low end: Sony UWP-D11
Then the high end starts at around the price of a Lectrosonics LR/LT kit (then goes up and up!). And unfortunately there is quite a gap between two those two points which is fairly empty of appealing options (unless you look around at secondhand deals for older top end kit).